Stopped by police, Problems with producer HO/RT10

CarUser_2

achtunglady wrote: »

Police won't pull you for no good reason, so either your car was really bad

as i said the car was mostly driven by reps, therefor it was in bit of state, steal wheels with hubs a few dents on car. Any one who gets a car given from work to do small jobs should know what i mean.

achtunglady wrote: »

How would the OP feel if a member of his family was involved in an accident with an uninsured driver who drove off and themselves not being insured??

I never had anything like that happen and hope it never does to anyone, but i have had people scrape my car while its parked up in the street and it aint the best feeling. Why does everyone think i dont have insurance, if i didt have insurance i would be seeking legal advise straight away.

anewman

Angel777 wrote: »

Why should the OP be "of an ethnic minority"

Bad and incompetent drivers can be of any race or religion, it has NOTHING to do with ethnic minority.

I have noticed those cars with SK plates (Slovakian?) seem to be quite bad drivers, tailgating and in general bad driving. Guess that could be due to the test they take, and their traffic enforcement cops, being poor compared with ours.

I agree with achtunglady on getting a cheapie runaround. If you look around you'll get something respectable for under £500.

While we do see some Asian guys on the TV on these police camera action type programs being quick to cry racism when they're in the wrong and pulled over by a white police officer, I am sure not all do the same.

anewman

CarUser wrote: »

Why does everyone think i dont have insurance, if i didt have insurance i would be seeking legal advise straight away.

I think because it's all too common for people to drive other people's cars without insurance. The police probably think the same and when you don't have evidence of insurance with you, and they see it doesn't belong to you, they get heavy handed unfortunately. So the other way around this is if driving on temporary insurance to *always* keep the insurance documents for that time in your wallet. If the police pull you over you can always keep them happy then.

CarUser_2

i know wot u mean with the import cars, there loads of them around wher my parents live, mostly cabs and left hand drives. I have just sold my car and im just saving up a bit so i can get my self a decent car. I Was planning on getting a couple minnor repairs done on the vectra then using it for a couple of months.

mrbadexample

If you reject the three points and fine for the tyre, you will have to go to court. In order to prove the offence, the police officer will require evidence. If he did not physically measure the depth of the tread, with a properly calibrated gauge, he is going to struggle. Did he photograph the tyre? Did he note the make and serial number of the tyre?

As was pointed out in a previous post, he is unlikely to have any mechanical qualifications. From your post, it would appear that he has not retained any evidence of the tread depth. It would take an exceptional individual to determine, by eye, the difference between 1.7mm and 1.5mm.

If what you say is true, that he did not measure the tread depth (and assuming it wasn't worn down to the metal cords), reject the on the spot fine, and have your day in court. The officer will be unable to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that you have committed an offence.

With the money you save, buy some new tyres.

Happychappy

mrbadexample wrote: »

If you reject the three points and fine for the tyre, you will have to go to court. In order to prove the offence, the police officer will require evidence. If he did not physically measure the depth of the tread, with a properly calibrated gauge, he is going to struggle. Did he photograph the tyre? Did he note the make and serial number of the tyre?

As was pointed out in a previous post, he is unlikely to have any mechanical qualifications. From your post, it would appear that he has not retained any evidence of the tread depth. It would take an exceptional individual to determine, by eye, the difference between 1.7mm and 1.5mm.

If what you say is true, that he did not measure the tread depth (and assuming it wasn't worn down to the metal cords), reject the on the spot fine, and have your day in court. The officer will be unable to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that you have committed an offence.

With the money you save, buy some new tyres.

And the the tooth fairy will come along and take all your worries away from you, so just sleep with your head under he pillow :rolleyes:

Of course the police officer, who has never dealt with a numpty barrack room lawyer and a most complicated and expert case as a bald tyre will not have a clue what to do and will shake and wee himself when you say "are you a tyre expert" :rotfl:

I would image he will say NO, but funnily enough I can measure things, like how much water to put in a recipe and what 1.6mm looks like. Oh give it a break this guys a wind up, dont start tree hugging ? the Vietnam war and lost causes finished years ago :T

tomstickland

Inactive wrote: »

The OP has been " pulled over " again since this original offence, I have to ask why?

I have never been pulled over by the police in years of safe driving.

The police will pull over any car that takes their fancy, be it due to vehicle appearance, driver appearance, or just being the next vehicle that they see.

I want to nominate this for "moral superiority thread of the year".

mrbadexample

Happychappy wrote: »

And the the tooth fairy will come along and take all your worries away from you, so just sleep with your head under he pillow :rolleyes:

Of course the police officer, who has never dealt with a numpty barrack room lawyer and a most complicated and expert case as a bald tyre will not have a clue what to do and will shake and wee himself when you say "are you a tyre expert" :rotfl:

I would image he will say NO, but funnily enough I can measure things, like how much water to put in a recipe and what 1.6mm looks like. Oh give it a break this guys a wind up, dont start tree hugging ? the Vietnam war and lost causes finished years ago :T

You've missed the point Happy. It is down to the police officer to prove the offence. To do this, he needs evidence. No evidence = no offence, and that's the end of it. He can't just say: "I looked at the tyre and it was worn below the legal limit". That's not evidence. Unless of course, the metal was exposed, in which case a statement to that effect might be sufficient. That's how the law works. A defence lawyer would not even be required.

You don't ask him if he's a tyre expert. You ask him what the depth of tread remained on the tyre. Unless he can prove it is less than 1.6mm, there's no case to answer.

CarUser_2

Thanks for the messages on tyre, the officers made no record of the tyres at all, they have no evidence and it may sound abit wrong to some of you but i had that tyre replaced as soon as police pulled me over and also when my dad told me its on the legal limit.

Keith

mrbadexample wrote: »

You've missed the point Happy. It is down to the police officer to prove the offence. To do this, he needs evidence. No evidence = no offence, and that's the end of it. He can't just say: "I looked at the tyre and it was worn below the legal limit". That's not evidence. Unless of course, the metal was exposed, in which case a statement to that effect might be sufficient. That's how the law works. A defence lawyer would not even be required.

You don't ask him if he's a tyre expert. You ask him what the depth of tread remained on the tyre. Unless he can prove it is less than 1.6mm, there's no case to answer.

No, it is not. The police officer is classed as an Expert Witness and because of that his training and experience lead him to have the knowledge over a reasonable person to give legal opinion on the standard of the tyres, brakes, etc.

He does not need to be a "tyre expert" he can just give Expert Opinion that the tyre is knackered and that is enough for 3 points & £60 fine.